Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court disavowed the approach of the state’s courts prohibiting a defendant from simultaneously claiming self-defense and asserting a misidentification defense, holding that if some evidence supports a finding of self-defense, and even if the defendant asserts a misidentification defense, the prosecution must prove the absence of self-defense and the trial court must give a requested self-defense jury instruction.The court of appeals in this case reversed Defendant’s murder convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in refusing to give a self-defense instruction on the grounds that Defendant had denied he had shot the victims. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and reversed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) at least the “slightest evidence” existed that Defendant shot the victims in self-defense; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. View "State v. Carson" on Justia Law

The Superior Court of Navajo County erred when it denied Defendants’ motion for change of venue in this legal malpractice action filed by a Hospital located in Navajo County against a professional limited liability company (PLLC) organized in Maricopa County and its attorneys, both Maricopa County residents.After the Hospital sued, Defendants moved to transfer venue to Maricopa County, arguing that venue in Navajo County was improper unless a statutory exception applied under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-401. The trial court denied the motion, finding that venue in Navajo was proper under section 12-401(5) because the Hospital “exclusively contracted business in Navajo County,” and under section 12-401(18), reasoning that LLCs should be considered corporations for venue purposes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the PLLC was not required, expressly or by necessary implication, to perform in Navajo County; and (2) the trial court erred when it applied the subsection (18) exception on the basis that LLCs, like corporations, are amenable to veil-piercing, where venue and the alter-ego doctrine reflect different policy considerations. View "Butler Law Firm, PLC v. Honorable Robert J. Higgins" on Justia Law

At issue was the procedure for evaluating a capital defendant’s intellectual disability (ID) status before trial.Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-753(B) provides that the trial court shall order a pretrial ID evaluation in every capital case unless the defendant objects, and if the defendant objects, the defendant waives the right to a pretrial evaluation. In the instant case, more than two years after filing his objection to an ID evaluation and four months before the scheduled trial, Defendant moved to withdraw his objection to court-ordered testing. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that section 13-753(B) permitted Defendant to reinstate his right to a pretrial ID evaluation by withdrawing his objection. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for consideration of Defendant’s request for an ID evaluation, holding (1) a defendant cannot void his waiver under section 13-753(B) by later withdrawing his objection; but (2) a defendant’s waiver does not deprive the court of its discretionary authority to order a pretrial ID evaluation if the defendant later requests or consents to one. View "State v. Honorable Pamela S. Gates" on Justia Law

At issue in this termination of parental rights proceeding was the procedure a juvenile court must follow if a parent fails to timely appear for a scheduled and duly-notice termination adjudication hearing. The Supreme Court held (1) a parent who fails timely to appear for a duly-noticed termination adjudication hearing has “failed to appear” under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-863(C) and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 66(D)(2); (2) if a juvenile court exercises its discretion to proceeding with the hearing in a parent’s absence after finding waiver of the parent’s legal rights, the rights waived include the parent’s due process rights to be present and to participate and testify in the hearing; (3) the waiver rules do not apply to a parent’s right to counsel at a termination adjudication hearing, which right is unaffected by the parent’s appearance or absence; and (4) when a juvenile court finds that a parent has waived his or her legal rights, the state must nonetheless present sufficient evidence to establish an alleged ground for termination and for a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests. View "Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety, Z.D." on Justia Law

Arizona equitable indemnity law does not incorporate the Restatement (First) of Restitution section 78 because it conflicts with Arizona’s general equitable indemnity principles.Michael Bovre rented a vehicle from Payless Car Rental System Inc. Payless offered Bovre supplemental liability insurance (SLI) under a policy provided by KnightBrook Insurance Co. Bovre caused an accident while driving the rental vehicle that injured Lorraine and Robert McGill. The McGills sued Bovre. The parties settled. Bovre assigned to the McGills his claims against KnightBrook and Payless for their alleged failure to provide supplemental liability insurance (SLI) and agreed to an adverse judgment. Thereafter, the McGills sued Payless and KnightBrook seeking to recover the judgment. The McGills and KnightBrook entered into a settlement in which the McGills’ claims against Payless were assigned to KnightBrook, which paid the McGills the $970,000 SLI policy limit. KnightBrook then filed an action in federal court against Payless, asserting an equitable indemnification claim for the $970,000 it paid McGills. Relying on the First Restatement section 78, the district court ruled that KnightBrook was entitled to equitable indemnification from Payless for the $970,000 SLI policy limits. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court. The court answered the first question as set forth above, which rendered moot the second question. View "KnightBrook Insurance Co. v. Payless Car Rental System Inc." on Justia Law

When a defendant possesses an item that is statutorily defined contraband, the State need prove only that the defendant knowingly possessed the item, not that the defendant knew it was contraband, to convict the defendant under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2505(A) of knowingly possessing contraband while being confined in a correctional facility or transported to it.Defendant was convicted of promoting prison contraband for possessing a cellphone at the relevant times. The court of appeals ruled that it was necessary for the State, in addition to proving that Defendant knew he had a cellphone, to also prove he knew it was contraband. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and held that the trial court correctly ruled that the State did not have to prove that Defendant knew the cellphone was contraband. View "State v. Francis" on Justia Law

When a defendant possesses an item that is statutorily defined contraband, the State need prove only that the defendant knowingly possessed the item, not that the defendant knew it was contraband, to convict the defendant under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2505(A) of knowingly possessing contraband while being confined in a correctional facility or transported to it.Defendant was convicted of promoting prison contraband for possessing a cellphone at the relevant times. The court of appeals ruled that it was necessary for the State, in addition to proving that Defendant knew he had a cellphone, to also prove he knew it was contraband. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and held that the trial court correctly ruled that the State did not have to prove that Defendant knew the cellphone was contraband. View "State v. Francis" on Justia Law

Arizona’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (AUIFSA), by its terms, allows an obligee to contest an obligor’s statement of child support arrears notwithstanding the obligee’s failure to request a hearing within twenty days of receiving notice of the child support order’s registration.In 2014, Father registered in Arizona a 2004 child support order from Illinois. Mother subsequently accepted service of the registration documents, including Father’s statement of arrearages. Thereafter, Mother requested a hearing to contest the amount of arrears in Father’s proposed judgment. The family court determined that Mother’s request was untimely because it was filed more than twenty days after her attorney accepted service. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that AUIFSA did not prelude Mother’s objection in this case. View "Taylor v. Pandola" on Justia Law

Arizona’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (AUIFSA), by its terms, allows an obligee to contest an obligor’s statement of child support arrears notwithstanding the obligee’s failure to request a hearing within twenty days of receiving notice of the child support order’s registration.In 2014, Father registered in Arizona a 2004 child support order from Illinois. Mother subsequently accepted service of the registration documents, including Father’s statement of arrearages. Thereafter, Mother requested a hearing to contest the amount of arrears in Father’s proposed judgment. The family court determined that Mother’s request was untimely because it was filed more than twenty days after her attorney accepted service. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that AUIFSA did not prelude Mother’s objection in this case. View "Taylor v. Pandola" on Justia Law

Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-957(B)’s fourteen-day time limit for an appeal of a Citizens Clean Elections Commission penalty decision applies when the appellant challenges the Commission’s personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.The Commission in this case found probable cause to believe that Legacy Foundation Action Fund violated the Citizens Clean Elections Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-940 to -961 and thus assessed a civil penalty. Eighteen days after the Commission’s final decision, Legacy filed an appeal in the superior court. The superior court dismissed the appeal because it was not filed within fourteen days of a final Commission penalty decision as required by section 16-957(B). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly dismissed the appeal. View "Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission" on Justia Law